2018 (9) TMI 1359

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ustries [1997 (3) TMI 430 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI] that ‘dharmada charges’ are not liable to be included in the assessable value for the purpose of section 4 of Central Excise Act, 1944 - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Shri C J Mathew, Member (Technical) And Shri Ajay Sharma, Member (Judicial) Ms Padmavati Patil, Advocate for appellant Shri DS Chauhan, Assistant Commissioner (AR) .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Steel Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Belgaum [2007 (219) ELT 683 (Tri.Bang.)] had placed reliance upon the affirmation by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of the decision of the Tribunal in Collector v. Golden View Electrical Industries [2002 (147) ELT 1199 (Tribunal) that 'dharmada charges' are not liable to be included in the assessable value for the purpose of section 4 of Central Excise Act, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of Central Excise v. Panchmukhi Engineering Works [2003 (158) ELT 550 (SC)]. According to him the decision in Tata Iron and Steel Co Ltd v. Collector of Central Excise, Jamshedpur [2002 (146) ELT 3 (SC)] in the matter of includability of certain funds in the assessable value holds the field and that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has reiterated this in re Panchmukhi Engineering Works. 5. In the light .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X